List WWDC sample code projects

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the response contract (title, URL, kind, linked session, grouped by year), but says nothing about pagination behavior despite limit/offset params, nor about result size or cost.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by return fields and grouping. No filler, though the parenthetical enum listing is slightly redundant with the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the returned fields and the grouping, which is the key information for an agent deciding to call it. Only pagination behavior is unaddressed, which is a minor gap for this simple read-only listing tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 67%: tag, year, topic and format are documented in the schema, while limit and offset are not. The description reinforces only year/topic filtering and incidentally hints at the tag values ('kind (zip/github/snippet)'), leaving pagination and format semantics to the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does most of the work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Browse all indexed sample code projects') and even enumerates the returned fields and grouping. It is clear and distinct from most siblings, but never names or distinguishes itself from the close sibling wwdc_sample_code_grep or wwdc_list_session_code, so the 'browse all' framing has to carry the differentiation alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'optional year and topic filters' implies the browsing use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling grep tool that would be preferable for content-based lookup. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.